Evolution is a debatable theory with many arguments for and against it. For a school to be required to teach a topic with such a tension especially in a country with such a large population of Christians is wrong and would spur conflict. People would feel that it goes against their rights to have their children taught something that goes against their religion and or beliefs. The bottom line is teaching evolution would create more conflict than not teaching it.

If the children weren't taught evolution at schools, maybe they wouldn't have the chance of learning anything about it, because the parents may not have an enough or objective knowledge set about the topic.Children don't learn such things themselves, which would be illogical to advocate for.The children should also learn what their parents don't agree with so that they can have some rational opinions which they can create when they are mature enough. Teaching evolution won't create that much conflict if it's taught in a logical way which makes sense but also which is able to be debated. That would be the way to end the prejudice about evolution so that everyone will think about this again, which is the best way for such a debatable topic.

You make a good point for why we should have students be taught more than just one opinion or theory on the topic but to have only one veiwpoint in school would be indoctration. This would be against the personal rights of the students and their familys reagrdless of the importence of teaching another veiwpoint.

In science classes, students have to be taught what accords with science, that's why they learn about evolution. The thing Christians believe does not have concrete evidences though, which means they actually don't have the right to demand the educational system to teach only one side of a subject. Besides, the education of evolution does not mean that the children are forced to believe it,which means their rights actually are not so damaged. And all Christians are not so radical that they want their children not to be taught the evolution side, because they can already impress their children themselves.

"Evolution from species to species has no evidence for it." There is plenty of evidence for it. We share almost the exact same DNA as chimpanzees, which we know we do have a common anscestor with. The reason people say we have no evidence for it is the idiotic people that do not believe something unless they can't see it with their own eyes. Well your not going to see chimpanzees evolve to humans today. That's just idiotic and that's not how we even evolved from. People that deny global warming simply because they don't see it lol.

"Plus, you said it yourself, we are getting worse. This statement goes against the idea of evolution, where we should be getting better." This doesn't help your case... And I already stated the reason why we are going bea makers is because slower humans produce many more offsprings than their smarter counterparts. Evolution. And no. No such evidence for any god. But that's another debate for another time.

Natural selection does happen, but this is not what is taught in schools. Evolution from species to species has no evidence for it. Plus, you said it yourself, we are getting worse. This statement goes against the idea of evolution, where we should be getting better. Why teach a theory when you can just teach the facts and let them decide by themselves. And there is evidence for God, just has been ignored.

Even human are adapting today. Well actually in a way our species is in sort of free fall. Since we have very free laws for people to recreate with whom they want, studies have shown that we are actually moving backwards. We have actually lost around 14 IQ points since the Victorian Era where woman were picked not just for beauty (but of course that still happened often). Humans show small adaptations for there environment. We see it in skin pigmintation, the three different consistancies of hair, and the three different types of our skulls, all depending on where you live. Evolution

That probability percentage just isn't correct. Evolution is actually the only probable "theory" that hypothesizes any origins of every species. You said that specie fists can't recreate sponatneous creation to prove evolution. Well if its spontaneously happening, it's not evolution in the first place. In fact evolution can take thousands of years to adapt to the way it wants to. It's small unnoticible changes throughout generations. Evolution also works in the way of survival of the fittest. A much furrier fox living through winter will outlive one that isn't so furry. The furry one will live on and the species will evolve so that they are much more sustainable through winter.

Evolution should not be taught based on the fact it has been muted by the fact it is highly not probable. Science cannot recreate spontaneous creation in order for evolution to be possible.

According to Hoyle's analysis, the probability of cellular life evolving was about one-in-10 to the 40,000th power. The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes? ~ Fred Hoyle

"Evolution is a debatable theory with many arguments for and against it." No, scientists are pretty much in agreement on evolution. I think a school should teach the importance of the human foundations which would be our origins. What is school but a place to acquire sound knowledge?

Reasons for voting decision: Basically con lost me with this remark "but to have only one veiwpoint in school would be indoctration." Not a bad reply, but off topic. The resolution of this debate was solely about evolution; not if other things should be taught too.

Reasons for voting decision: I personally think you two should do this again, only make the debate longer. I do not think either side had a very convincing argument, but at the very least Ekin was nice and accepting. Well done.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.